Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: Extended Mode, Basic Mode, and NestedMIPv6

From: "Alan O'Neill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 22:58:00 -0400

Strongly with you on this one Jak

Routing proxies are the general issue here. Maybe then some specific
architecture work on routing proxies in the specific case of LMM might then
be useful..We can maybe leave that one open..

Alan.

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 September 2002 04:45
To: Behcet Sarikaya
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [mobile-ip] Re: Extended Mode, Basic Mode, and NestedMIPv6

Behcet,

<WG member hat on>

>   How can you say that we do not need an architecture document? Anytime
> a new entity, e.g. LMA as defined in the requirements draft  is added,
> not only requirements but also architecture document needs to be
> developed, e.g. architectural considerations regarding LMAs, not routing
> proxies (I do not know what are these?).
>   As a cochair of Seamoby, you should know this more that anybody else.
> For example you added a small section in RFC 3514 for paging. For CT, I
> saw some drafts. So this is the right way to go.

RFC 3514 was a mistake. It did not consider paging in the wider context of
IP
routing in general, and MIPv6 in particular. If that had been done, paging
would
never have been added to the Seamoby charter. I am not going to go into the
details why I believe this, since this mailing list is not the venue for it.

What I am trying to do in this case is learn from my mistakes and recommend
to
uplevel the architectural discussion (should the ADs and WG chairs agree
there
is a need) so that routing proxies can be considered in the wider context of
the
general IP routing architecture.

>   Unfortunately LMM first followed the old practice of coming up with
> the solution fast, as in MIPv4 and MIPv6. There has been some correction
> and as a result we have the requirements work that Carl Williams is
> editing.
>   We need to complete the correction and come up with an architecture
draft.

Personally, I believe that the IETF has already accepted the concept of
routing
proxies in the form of the HA and the FA, so the issue of whether there is
an
architectural issue is unclear to me, but I believe it is up to the WG
chairs
and ADs to make that determination.

            jak

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Sep 2002 15:10:29 +0200

> be useful..We can maybe leave that one open..

Hi, a quick question about routing proxies.

Where else can I find routing proxies mentioned, other than being like
an HA or an FA?

Thanks,

Alex

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 08:58:19 -0500

Hello Alex,
  I am also curious on this. Not the terminology draft 
draft-ietf-seamoby-mobility-terminology-00.txt

Once a reference is given, I am going to add to my architecture draft 
and mention LMA as an example of routing proxy. I promise :)

Regards,

-- 
Behcet

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 06 Sep 2002 16:38:57 +0200

> and mention LMA as an example of routing proxy. I promise :)

Hi Behcet,

I could find the AAA-related "Routing Proxy" and the BGP-related
"Route Proxy".  But I'm sure James used it here as an extrapolation,
somehow.

Alex

draft-ietf-aaa-proxies-01.txt:
  2.1 Routing Proxies

  Routing Proxies servers take requests, examine the identifying
  information (e.g. User-Name with NAI, Called-Number, Calling-Number)
  and decide which authentication server to forward the request to.  This
  "decision" process is usually a lookup list with domain and server
  information.
  ...

draft-bernstein-optical-bgp-01.txt:
3.1.3   Legacy Interoperability Inter-area 
    
   A very important subcase of inter-vendor/inter-area is where some 
   optical subnetworks (read: lots of existing installations) may not 
   run a routing protocol at all, e.g., they rely strictly on EMS-based 
   topology discovery/resource management.  In this case it may be 
   necessary to establish a "route proxy" to represent the sub-network 
   and allow for interoperability with other subnetworks. Key in this 
   ...

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:18:27 -0700

As far as  I know, HA and FA are the only routing proxies.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alan O'Neill" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'James Kempf'" <[email-masked]>; "Behcet Sarikaya"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Re: Extended Mode, Basic Mode, and NestedMIPv6